# DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHA JAIN & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 15 S.C.R. 626
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-11-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8088 of 2022
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, M. M. Sundresh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/delhi-development-authority-v-asha-jain-ors-35641
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) -
High Court relying on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as [2014] 1 SCR 783,
and observing that as compensation has not been paid and/or
tendered to the recorded owners/petitioners, declared that the
acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by
virtue of s.24(2) - On appeal, held: The case relied upon by High
Court has been overruled in the Constitution Bench case of Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129
wherein it has been held that the deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings u/s.24(2) takes place where due to inaction of
authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the
2013 Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid - Thus, in case possession has been
taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse -
Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been
taken then there is no lapse - In the present case, possession of the
land in question was taken over in 2005, as also observed by High
Court - Further, according to the original writ petitioner, she
acquired the right in the land in question pursuant to Agreement to
Sell dtd. 09.05.05 - Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any
right, title, or interest - Original writ petitioner can be said to be
subsequent purchaser and/or has acquired the right subsequently
- Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition
proceedings - Impugned judgment set aside - Writ petition filed by
the original writ petitioner before High Court, dismissed - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 626
626
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd.
& Ors., Decision of Supreme Court in Civil appeal
No. 3073 of 2022 - relied on.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of
Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh &
Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
(2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11 SCR 454; Shiv Kumar &
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3.1
[2015] 11 SCR 454
referred to
Para 4.1

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
ASHA JAIN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8088 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 09, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) -
High Court relying on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as [2014] 1 SCR 783,
and observing that as compensation has not been paid and/or
tendered to the recorded owners/petitioners, declared that the
acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by
virtue of s.24(2) - On appeal, held: The case relied upon by High
Court has been overruled in the Constitution Bench case of Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129
wherein it has been held that the deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings u/s.24(2) takes place where due to inaction of
authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the
2013 Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid - Thus, in case possession has been
taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse -
Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been
taken then there is no lapse - In the present case, possession of the
land in question was taken over in 2005, as also observed by High
Court - Further, according to the original writ petitioner, she
acquired the right in the land in question pursuant to Agreement to
Sell dtd. 09.05.05 - Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any
right, title, or interest - Original writ petitioner can be said to be
subsequent purchaser and/or has acquired the right subsequently
- Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition
proceedings - Impugned judgment set aside - Writ petition filed by
the original writ petitioner before High Court, dismissed - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 626
626
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd.
& Ors., Decision of Supreme Court in Civil appeal
No. 3073 of 2022 - relied on.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783; Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of
Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh &
Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
(2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11 SCR 454; Shiv Kumar &
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3.1
[2015] 11 SCR 454
referred to
Para 4.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8088
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 2987 of 2016.
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Adv. for the Appellant.
Aakash Dubey, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Atul Kumar,
Ms. Sweety Singh, Rahul Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition
(C) No. 2987 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and has declared that
the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013"), the Delhi Development
Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHA JAIN & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case
and even as observed by the High Court, the possession of the land in
question was taken over in the year 2005, however, observing that as
the compensation has not been paid and/or tendered to the recorded
owners/petitioners, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the
land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013.
3.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court while
passing the impugned judgment and order has been subsequently overruled
by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case
of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020)
8 SCC 129. In paragraph 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this
Court has observed and held as under:-
"365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,
(2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in
which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been
followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State
of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down
good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are
also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
[(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to
Section 24(2) and whether "or" has to be read as "nor" or as
"and" was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision
too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present
judgment.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
629
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of
the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has
to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered by an
interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as
provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894
Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as "and".
The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of
authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the
said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession
has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no
lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has
not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation
in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso
to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section
31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest
under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under
the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of
notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation
as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to
him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHA JAIN & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section
31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation
or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim
that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to
be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest
report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking
possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in
State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse
under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities
have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay
compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came
into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the
authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of
interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the
computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to
new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding
pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014.
It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen
concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the
legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or
mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court
to invalidate acquisition."
In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is unsustainable.
4. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present
case, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued on 25.11.1980; acquisition was for a public purpose, namely,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
631
planned development of Delhi by which the large chunk of land in 13
villages of South Delhi including Village Neb Sarai was sought to be
acquired. As per the record, the land in question originally is the part of
Khasra No. 675 recorded in the name of M/s. Laxmichand Bhagaji
Limited - a non-banking company. Therefore, M/s. Laxmichand Bhagaji
Limited was the recorded owner. From the material on record, it appears
that even according to the original writ petitioner, she acquired the right
in the land in question pursuant to the Agreement to Sell dated 09.05.2005.
Thus, the original writ petitioner was claiming the right in the land in
question pursuant to the Agreement to Sell dated 09.05.2005.
4.1 As per the settled position of law, Agreement to Sell by itself
does not confer any right, title, or interest. In any case, the original writ
petitioner can be said to be subsequent purchaser and/or has acquired
the right subsequently. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors.,
Civil appeal No. 3073 of 2022 after considering the other decisions
on the right of the subsequent purchaser to claim lapse of acquisition
proceedings, i.e., Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
& Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs.
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, (2015) 17 SCC
1, it is specifically observed and held that subsequent purchaser has no
right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. Similar view has been
expressed by the Larger Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC
229.
4.2 Under the circumstances also, the High Court has erred in
entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the original writ petitioner
being subsequent purchaser, praying for a declaration that the acquisition
is deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Under the circumstances also, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is unsustainable.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, is hereby
quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the original
writ petitioner before the High Court being Writ Petition (C) No. 2987 of
2016 stands dismissed.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHA JAIN & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)